"I'm sorry, but I obviously didn't read into previous posters' comments what you did. Obviously men can and do rule in civil societies, as can women. But it's close to impossible for women to thrive in an environment where brute force is the final arbiter of success - hence the distinction. Are you really arguing against that?"

I never argued against that. I agrued against the sexist notion that men rule when there is brute force involved and women rule when there is law and civility.

"

I also think you're working under a false dichotomy. The fact (and it is a fact) that women have historically been oppressed doesn't necessarily have to stem from intentional maliciousness or conspiracy on the part of men. In many times and places (far too many for it to have been simply the result of chance), men simply assumed that women had nothing useful to contribute to public life and were inherently subordinate. One need not be sinister to be ignorant."

Fair enough but we must also add that women also simply assumed they had nothing to contribute to the public life and were inherently subordinate and "blaming men" is a silly thing to do. There were men just as women who disagreed with these times of inequality.

Which part exactly did I show that I couldn't have a conversation. I hope by now you figured it out that i'm not going to let you get away with just making statements without backing them up regardless of what they are. I mean you can just not post and show everyone your inability, either way.

I don't think you being a woman has anything to do with wanting the last word.

Which part exactly did I show that I couldn't have a conversation. I hope by now you figured it out that i'm not going to let you get away with just making statements without backing them up regardless of what they are.

Well, there is a question that answeres itself if I ever saw one. I have already given the reasons why I do not think you can have a conversation in previous posts. I am not going to spend time repeating them just because you did not pick them up the first time.

Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears.

"No, we are not having a conversation anymore. In fact we stopped having a conversation when you showed your incapability of having one somewhere along page one."

Never explained anything here. This was IIRC the first time you made mention that I was incapable of having a conversation. So between this message and your next you are saying that you explained it? Either you don't know your own words or you're a really bad liar.

I am a good liar, but never mind that now. You are a really bad reader. The abovequoted line was just a clarification of sentiments made claer a lot earlier in the thread. and so were my reasons for that conclusion.

Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears.

How were they made clear? You simply brought up random things to my statements that had little (at best) to do with the topic and accused me of making those points. And you didn't list any reasons for any conclusion which you say you may have made. Could you please simply list things or explain in depth? Thank you.

I think it's just that women are generally either too nice or too harsh. I don't mean that as a slight, its just that rulers sometimes have to be cruel and brutal and make the hard choice. But at the same time, a good ruler couldn't just be that, he had to be accessible too. Alot of women can be hard but in general, I find most women are either hard or soft, most seem to have trouble with that middle ground.

A very few women have it in spades though, and in all ages you do see a few women rulers - even in the most patriarchal of eras sometimes. Even all the way back at the dawn of civilization you have women like, uhm, Kubaba the tavern-keeper (no I'm not joking!) who somehow defeated Sharrum-Iter and took the crown of Sumeria from the city of Mari, bringing it to Kish and founding the Third Dynasty of Kish. In the medieval era there are a few queens but also female figures in other positions of power - the women who dominated the papacy during the Pornocracy, abbesses who controlled vast wealth and huge holdings, and so on.

I don't think gender has ever really been as important as other factors in any society - whether Rome, or feudal Europe, or the Renaissance monarchies, a woman of high social status was always the social superior of a male plebe or peasant.

I don't think gender has ever really been as important as other factors in any society - whether Rome, or feudal Europe, or the Renaissance monarchies, a woman of high social status was always the social superior of a male plebe or peasant.

Until she married, when she took the social status of her husband (whether she moved up or down).

Coincidentally I've just been doing a lot of work on Goethe's The Natural Daughter, where the heroine loses her status as daughter of a duke and a princess by marrying a lawyer (which takes out of the political arena).

Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum